The Washington, D.C. City Council is expected to approve a measure legalizing same-sex marriage there next month. And the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is not happy about it. The Archdiocese has issued a statement warning that if the marriage bill passes, the church may not be able to provide its social service programs to the city. The move could threaten tens of thousands that get help from the church’s programs with adoption, homeless shelters and foster care programs. Archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said that by passing the marriage bill the council would be “putting restrictions on us.” According to MyFoxDC.com, the Archdiocese’s social arm is Catholic Charities, which essentially forms the partnership with the District on dozens of different social services that affects more than 68,000 people. One of the biggest is the homeless program. It serves more than a third of the city’s homeless population. This along with adoption and foster care would be the hardest hit. The bill does not require religious organizations to perform or authorize a same-sex wedding or provide religious counseling or education to same-sex couples. But those organizations would be required to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians. That, the Archdiocese says, violates its religious doctrines. “Being Catholic is far more than that. It is every part of our faith. It permeates in our office life. It permeates in our office benefits our adoption services our foster care services,” Gibbs told the Fox station. But D.C. Councilmember Mary Cheh told MyFoxDC she thinks the threat smells of desperation: “It signals to me a little bit of desperation because they oppose it and I understand that. That’s their right to oppose that but they are coming out of left field — it seems to me to try to figure out how they can up the ante.” Sounds a little like blackmail to me.
19 Comments
It doesn’t surprise me one bit that the Catholic mafia would try to control the politics of the DC City Council.
It may seem harsh but Christians need to stand for what they believe just as those that support same sex marriage. I applaud the church for taking a stand. I hope this promotes more churches and Christians to be more vocal as to to their beliefs.
The city should not assume that the church is an open check book without remembering what the church stands for. Maybe the state can come up with the funding and the church can invest in programs that do not support same sex marriages.
Let other charitable organizations provide services for homelessness services, crisis assistance for teenagers, and adoption and foster care programs.
Tax dollars should NOT go to religious organizations that DISCRIMINATE against some Americans.
We must maintain the separation of church and state.
the people that are
antichrist control the school union
anticrist control the movie industry
antichrist have some control on media
antichrist blackmailed some of our preachers so they dont fight to protect christianity in america
antichrist love to see america to become antichrist
and there is alot more and alot of powerfull people knows who they are what are there goal who is behind them and who hates christ why they dont act becuase things has to be build up more ugly and then it is only matter of time they all be regreting becuase it is written the good will prevail and the bad will be defeated and procusted
Go ahead, William, and say it. I want to hear the anti-Semitic crap come clearly out of your mouth. Say it clearly – the who controls the media. the … controls Hollywood. Come on you bigoted piece of crap. Say it.
A couple of points: First, I am no lawyer, but I think it would have to be fairly easy to circumvent those discrimination laws and not provide those services to gay couples. Maybe only providing services to members of the church? It would also help to increase membership-‘you can only eat at our soup kitchen if you accept our church as your lord and savior’. Yes, that was a little sarcastic, bringing me to my second point. Catholicism is supposed to be a part of Christianity. Christians are supposed to love their neighbor no matter what. Even if they have another faith. Which is more serious to the catholic church, having a differrent god (breaking the first commandment) or being in love with someone of the same gender (supposedly breaking an obscure referrence possibly translated wrong during the many translations that lead to an english version). Forget that question and go back to loving your neighbor, which is basically the rule that Jesus brought to the earth when God realized we weren’t smart enough to follow ten rules.
The bible is the foundation of the Church. According to the bible (King James Version) it is a sin for same sex relationships. Why would you try to force a church to do what the word (Bible) & teaching says not? Read- Gen 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed); Leviticus 18:22; Judges 19:24; 1st King 14:24 (Sodomites means male prostitutes) ; Roman 1:27.
Yes, when you read a badly translated version, like King James, it says that. In Hebrew, the sin of Sodom is the sin of inhospitality. You want to argue O.T. with me, quote me in Hebrew or keep your ignorance to yourself. Sodomites doesn’t even mean prostitutes in English, but they certainly didn’t speak English in the Middle East.
Seems pretty simple: The district wants the church to do something that violates their doctrine. The church must decline.
Hopefully both will work together to avoid a loss of aid to those who need it until arrangements can be made for someone else to fill the church’s current role.
Since the church isn’t the one changing the rules of the game; the district is the one making changes, the church should be able to continue as is while the district makes other arrangements. This is not for the benefit of the church; it is for the benefit of those who rely on the aid.
Very simple. No problem.
“Let other charitable organizations provide services for homelessness services, crisis assistance for teenagers, and adoption and foster care programs.” – Nate Barton
Grand idea Nate! I guess we can do without thousands of hospitals, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, adoption agencies, schools, hospice programs, counseling programs, job training programs, group homes for children, foster child agencies, – and the list goes on and on and ….
Neither Christians nor the Church are perfect, and I don’t know that their threatened action in this instance is the best way to go. BUT without Christians being “salt & light” in our culture, there would be a massive black hole in our culture’s compassion. The vacuum would be devastating.
Dear Michelle: The church takes $18 Million A YEAR from the RESIDENTS of DC to provide their services. It’s not unreasonable for the citizens that are giving the catholic ‘charities’ money, to request that they don’t discriminate against citizens. If the catholic ‘charities’ wish to accept public money, they should abide by our laws.
This is bad press just after Catholics began marketing for Conservative Episcopalians.
There is no evidence that religion is a necessary part of our society. D.C. should tell Catholics to go to Hell – literally.
“If you make us stop being bigots, this kitten will die. Sorry, that’s just how it has to be.”
Funny, a group (religious) allegedly committed to the salvation of mankind and which preaches that we are all god’s children, made in his image, would prefer to turn away from its mission — including feeding starving children and placing orphans in loving homes — rather than be forced to employ gay people because, apparently, actually LIVING their faith is seen somehow as undermining it. Where’s all that “turn the other cheek” prattle you forced down my throat as a kid? I wonder if they have a litmus test for homeless people that they be Catholic in order to receive services (“sorry, if you make us feed Jews, it goes against our faith”). My guess is they don’t, nor a sexual orientation test. They want to do good. But they draw the line if “doing good” for the people means having to work alongside gays. The opposition strongly suggests “this law is bad because, as a rule, we ROUTINELY refuse to hire gay people right now — if you pass it, we could not continue our bigotry because SOOOO MANY people ask to work for us who are fruits.” Not sure I see that likely. Although considering all the priests I grew up with who were clearly gay, maybe they have a point…
Tod, I agree — You are VERY simple. In fact, a simpleton probably describes you to a T.
Alice Mae — the Bible also says a man cannot live with a woman while she’s menstruating. Where does your husband live once a month? Of course, he has a beard to his knees because he cannot shave; that’s in Leviticus too, as is the “abomination” of eating shellfish (I’m sure you have NEVER eaten a shrimp). And that lovely non-wrinkle blouse you are wearing … it’s not a blend is it? Cotton AND wool? Or a synthetic fiber? Because the Bible FORBIDS it.
But it doesn’t actually forbid same-sex relationship, if you can believe what you read (like how David LOVED Jonathan or how even Judas kissed Jesus).
Ignorance is an ugly thing, but never more so than when used to justify bigotry. Although I must admit to prejudice myself: I don’t even know you, and I already think you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think that’s great. Maybe they’ll completely move out of each city that passes these bills one at a time. Bigoted hateful church that it is. Just imagine if all churches in this country really really cared about the homeless, hungry, children, and other things that helped people then they wouldn’t mind paying some taxes. I think it’s long overdue that churches that preach politics from the pulpit, and those that receive any sort of federal or local funds for certain non-profit programs should have to pay taxes.
I just love all the religious fanatics who come to this site to express their views against gay people. Freedom of speech and all I understand, but really do they think they will persuade any of us otherwise? Go back to your discriminatory churches where you belong.
At some point, the “conservative” religious will only inhabit the rural areas of America. To me, that seems completely appropriate.
f the Church keeps accepting funding from the City to keep the shelters open, the Church will be required to engage in actions that directly contradict the teachings of the Church.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection. (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS)
Given this obligation, the Church can not pay for the insurance of a same sex partner as they would be required under the proposed City law. This does not mean the Church will not continue to serve the poor and needy in the community. It will not, however, be able to do so under the current contracts. These services will have to be taken up by others.
Are you suggesting that the Church should engage in facilitating the adoption or foster care placement of a child to a same sex couple? That the Church should be required to allow a same sex couple support group to meet in Church owned and maintained facilities? These actions are a sin by the teachings of the Church.
You may disagree with the teachings of the Church on these matters. You may also work to persuade the Church to change these positions. However, the City can not force the Church to take their position.
In Roman Catholicism, homosexual acts are considered contrary to natural law and sinful, while homosexual desires are considered “disordered” but not themselves sinful. The Roman Catholic Church considers human sexual behavior to be sacred, when properly expressed. Anal intercourse and homogenital acts are considered sinful because sexual acts, by their nature, are thought to be both unitive and procreative (mirroring God’s inner Trinitarian life). The Church also believes the complementarity of the sexes to be part of God’s plan. Same-gender sexual acts are thought to be incompatible with this framework:
[H]omosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2357)
These teachings are not limited to the issue of homosexuality, but form the philosophical underpinning for the Catholic teachings against, for example, fornication, all other forms of sodomy, as well as contraception, pornography, and masturbation.
In brief: The Church teaches that one should help the homosexual person in every possible way, which does not mean encouraging the person to act out homosexual impulses, but the contrary. The City would require the Church to violate a fundamental teaching if it honored the contracts. It is the City that has given the Church an ultimatum.
Enjoy your weekend. Peace and Good.
This is the most un-Christian thing I have heard. Instead of showing Jesus’ love to homosexual people, they decide to persecute. Instead of supporting those who find love in this harsh world, the Catholic Archdiocese threatens to stop helping the poor. Jesus would be appalled. If you want to go against nearly everything Jesus said, keep taking this course of action. Good job Catholic Church, way to show Jesus’ love to our brothers and sisters… oh wait, just kidding.